MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6886080501 · doi:10.14288/1.0433633

Use of Benzodiazepines in BC : Is it consistent with recommendations?

2023· article· en· W6886080501 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse effectDrugPublic healthMEDLINEPharmacovigilance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Therapeutics Letter 54 considers whether the use of benzodiazepines in British Columbia (BC), Canada is consistent with recommendations. Conclusions: The pattern of utilization of benzos in BC appears inconsistent with the recommendations of educational groups, regulators and manufacturers: Approximately 170,000 people are receiving amounts incompatible with short-term or intermittent use. The two groups most vulnerable to adverse effects, women and the elderly, are the highest users. Use of long half-life drugs (>10 hours) predominates. The overall benefits and harms from this drug exposure in BC is unknown.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0110.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→